Bobby Jindal Promises Executive Order Allowing Discrimination Against Gay People

Me too...have been for quite a while now tooa reply to: mamabeth

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Correct me if I'm wrong but Louisiana doesn't recognize same sex marriage so at this point *no one* is being compelled to have any involvement in same sex marriages because they don't exist in Louisiana.

So then what's the point of the legislation?

The Supreme Court is getting ready to rule on marriage equality. It may become legal on a national level. This is a preemptive move by Jindal.

Yes I Agrwe and listening to oral arguments a good likely hood of that. I really hope they do but again this is one of the problems they specifically mentioned in oral arguments. For example churches provide homes for families in need. Does this mean they would be required to provide those services to all Maried couples. Would Maria get councilors provided by churches be required to council gay couples. There are no easy answers here without trampling someone's rights.

Hey hey now you leave jesus out of this ok...he has nothing to do with the bible alright there buddy.a reply to: Spiramirabilis

a reply to: dragonridr

you do realize that abused women go into churches for counseling and still get the blame for everything right?? I don't see this as being a danger to any church they have always been allowed to operate freely, unless of course the counseling portion of the church accepts federal funding in some way or accepts clients that federal funds pay for the services for (like catholic charities) then they might have to conform a tad because of that.

So would you, would you cater my big gay wedding? Which ironically wouldn't be all that gay because the majority of my friends and family are not. Were also really fun people so you might actually have a good time.t reply to: mamabeth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I've yet to see an issue where a gay couple forced a church to marry them against its will. If one exists, the incidents certainly aren't widespread.

It's all fear-mongering in the religious sector. They consider gays such a threat that they're trying to act preemptively before some gay couple walks in their church and turns all their children queer.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: dragonridr

you do realize that abused women go into churches for counseling and still get the blame for everything right?? I don't see this as being a danger to any church they have always been allowed to operate freely, unless of course the counseling portion of the church accepts federal funding in some way or accepts clients that federal funds pay for the services for (like catholic charities) then they might have to conform a tad because of that.

All churches receive governmwnt funds in the form of tax breaks. And of course laws on charitable contributions. Then of course licensing and regulations.

a reply to: TrappedPrincess

He does seem to be an inconvenient truth at times

:-)

a reply to: Answer

It's odd how much fear homosexuality causes in some people. I watch as people act as if being gay is some kind of disease they can catch. Its as if being "exposed" to a gay person can rub off on them and make them gay or something.

This is a totally irrational, backwards, and primitive way of thinking.

a reply to: dragonridr

no, I am talking like if the church opened a shelter and part of their funding was from a gov't grant, or the counseling that they were providing was through a gov't grant, or the clients they were seeing were paying for it through medicaid or through funding that was provided because it was court ordered....
then they might have a few restrictions on what they can do, since they have kind of partnered with the gov't to provide the services.

I know, Beez. I GET the issue. I understand how SOME religious people feel about it.

originally posted by: beezzer
Now when those that hold a religious conviction against gay marriage are forced (by law) to provide for a gay marriage, those that are religious see that as a tacit approval of the act of marriage for the gay folks.

They are not being forced, by law, to provide for a gay marriage! If they don't want to do that, they can get out of the marriage business!

And I feel their frustration because they are being denied the act of non-participation.

They used to do the same with black people. They used their religion and the bible to justify this "non-participation" with black people, claiming it was against their religion. Now, most religious people wouldn't think twice about providing goods for a black wedding.

They aren't being denied non-participation. They can choose not to participate in businesses that have a connection to marriage. They can choose to have a bakery, but not make wedding cakes. They can choose to have a flower shop, but not provide flowers for weddings. They have all sorts of options, they just want what they want.

No one is forcing them to be in a business that services weddings.

Laws don't change hearts and minds. Laws restrict behaviours. Laws restrict acts. Laws dictate behaviours.

I know. I agree. Gay people aren't trying to force changes of hearts and minds. They just want to be treated equally under the law.

There are those that will take advantage of these laws, in my humble opinion, and further restrict religious expression. I see it daily on these boards! Even you can't deny that!

And there are those who take advantage of "religious freedom" laws. Someone takes advantage of EVERY law.

Laws that even allow these religious freedoms are redundant and superfluous!

I agree. The first amendment is all people need to protect religious expression. But these "religious freedom" laws allow the religious, not just to express, but to ACT on their beliefs, by denying rights to others. And that's where you and I disagree.

In conclusion;
Nothing good is going to come from any of this. There will be no "new freedoms". There will only be more hate and division. Religious folks will stop listening and dig in their heels. LGBT folks will fight back against real and perceived oppression.

I disagree. That's how change happens. That's how black people got their rights. That's how civil rights happened. People hated and fought and dug in their heels and in the end, there were new freedoms. Black people could vote and couldn't be discriminated against because of their race.

The sum total will be a loss of expression and a new franchise for government to capitalise on that will include convoluted laws determining behaviours for every social situation.

Look up the word "expression". Where do you get the idea that denying to do business with someone is an "expression" rather than an action?

a reply to: MystikMushroom I think it's harder to understand as no one gives an understandable reason why they are anti gay apart from they read it in a book that an all loving God said something about it. I think a lot of its down to the ideas people have when they think about gay sex and find it a bit icky unless it's lesbian sex which they quite enjoy the idea of.

I think that any business with an anti-gay policy should be required to post a sign out front that says "we do not do business with homosexuals."

Businesses with anti-gun policies are required to post a sign saying that a person with a state-issued permit to carry a concealed handgun can not come into their building and most gun owners boycott any business with those policies.

If the bigots had to post a sign announcing their ignorant-ass policies against gays, the resulting boycotts would hurt them financially as soon as the country gets over this dumbass "let's start a gofundme page and raise a bunch of money for the intolerant asswipes!" trend.

The business owners should be free to do what they want, but they should have to announce it publicly so people have the ability to choose whether or not they wish to give money to a place with those policies.

This is really no different than the "whites only" policies of the past and it will end the same way. This time, people are hiding behind the "religious belief" excuse but it's really just bigotry inspired by ignorance.

It's especially ridiculous that the religious right in this country has been fear-mongering about "Sharia Law coming to the US" but passing laws like this are closer to Sharia Law than anything I've seen.

originally posted by: dragonridr
For example churches provide homes for families in need. Does this mean they would be required to provide those services to all Maried couples. Would Maria get councilors provided by churches be required to council gay couples.

The Supreme Court's decision has NOTHING to do with churches. Absolutely NOTHING. It's about law. NOTHING about church or religion or anything like that. Clear?

To answer your questions: No and no.

more like conveniently ignored truth...a reply to: Spiramirabilis

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Answer

It's odd how much fear homosexuality causes in some people. I watch as people act as if being gay is some kind of disease they can catch. Its as if being "exposed" to a gay person can rub off on them and make them gay or something.

This is a totally irrational, backwards, and primitive way of thinking.

People who have those sorts of beliefs are, almost universally, religious.

They believe that god wouldn't make someone gay so obviously homosexuals are mentally ill and chose the lifestyle for whatever reason which is why they think you can send someone to gay concentration camp and "pray the gay away." Anyone who believes that homosexuality is an illness that needs a cure is a monumental idiot.

When you believe that homosexuality is a choice, then you can believe that gays can "turn you" gay somehow. If someone honestly believes that they can be "turned gay," I think it says a lot more about the confidence they have in their own sexuality.

A lot of religious institutions teach a policy of avoidance. They avoid gays, people of other religions, atheists, etc and they use the excuse that those groups are all sinners who will try to lead them astray. The truth is: they are afraid that their congregation will get a dose of rationality and question all the nonsense they've been indoctrinated with.

(in my best redneck voice) mmmm...two girls touching mmmmm....I wonder if I can get up in that.

(Same voice) Oh mer GAWD!!!! A queer brushed my shoulder as we walked by I think I'm turning queer now, NOOOOOO!!!!a reply to: woodwardjnr

a reply to: Answer

it would also be a matter of courtesy, why waste a person's time by bringing them inside your establishment just to tell them they aren't welcomed. I think they should include it in all their advertisements also for the same reason!!!

Of course I am someone who spent most of her life walking everywhere she went and well, I am sure I wouldn't have appreciated walking a mile or so just to find out that my destination didn't want me there!

originally posted by: dawnstar
I think they should include it in all their advertisements also for the same reason!!!

Problem with that is, if it was law that they had to post a sign, many would consider it an infringement of their religious expression and we'd be right back here...

It would be pretty embarrassing too, I would have to say in that situation " uum...can I just go back outside and take my gay off then come back in? then stare at them. a reply to: dawnstar